** STATEMENT REGARDING GLORY **

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whitejock said:
Glory has corrected my assumptions, by text, as follows:

"I did accept the ban' Not interested in the length. To read the ****e about the second accounts means I won't be back. I spent hours proving I was not Eric, and then they started again. The clear for content reasons quoted is because if they repeated the known untruth once morethe legals were involved. Brb confirmed no second accounts exist. It's time to drop it imo".

and ..

"You can still see the board if you log out & view as a guest. That's what the banned see".

I got it wrong about viewing the board whilst banned. I'm guessing my source (Leeds60) was trying to log i to his account, rather than going in as a guest. My apologies if I misled anyone, chaps.

But this is Glory-specific. The thrust of my complaint is the way this and every other banning is handled, as detailed previously. My questions will not go away.
Click to expand...

Quick question Do you want strict moderation like other sites?

I'll post your concerns on the Moderator forum and see if we can learn from other teams pages <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitejock
Whitejock said:
Glory has corrected my assumptions, by text, as follows:

"I did accept the ban' Not interested in the length. To read the ****e about the second accounts means I won't be back. I spent hours proving I was not Eric, and then they started again. The clear for content reasons quoted is because if they repeated the known untruth once morethe legals were involved. Brb confirmed no second accounts exist. It's time to drop it imo".

and ..

"You can still see the board if you log out & view as a guest. That's what the banned see".

I got it wrong about viewing the board whilst banned. I'm guessing my source (Leeds60) was trying to log i to his account, rather than going in as a guest. My apologies if I misled anyone, chaps.

But this is Glory-specific. The thrust of my complaint is the way this and every other banning is handled, as detailed previously. My questions will not go away.
Click to expand...
Then my suggestion to the supermods would be the same, ask for the mod team to make an announcement stating why the person was banned, lock the thread so that it doesn't become cluttered, provide a contact email address for the supermods that the banned person can contact them on and take it from there. Even if it means the supermods unlocking the announcement and posting the email reply.

Again it is just a suggestion and not something myself Bucks or Elland can implement, I personally would be against a strict set of rules, it would be a nightmare implementing one site wide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ellandback, Whitejock and bucks_is_leeds
bucks_is_leeds said:
Blue meme and Clive were known as a disruptive force from previous boards. The complaint's dropped In straight away via pm and for the good of the board they were booted. Ja and mot forum done the same and we all drew the same conclusion that those two accounts were made to disrupt leeds forums. I believe the ja606 mod's believed them or him to be man u fans.
Click to expand...
I only mentioned them because Minxy challenged me to, allowing the inference to be taken that I was making the 'sine die' bannings up.

For the record, Bluememe could simply have been set to ignore as you could be sure that he wouldn't make personal attacks. Clive could also be ignored, for the same reason, but I for one actually enjoyed most of his posts, as a high percentage of them contained salient points.

It does beg the question if the complaints were 'my ignore button isn't working'. <whistle>
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucks_is_leeds
bucks_is_leeds said:
If people complain we listen. You for one knew how lenient we were with glory maybe we should have nipped it on the bud earlier bit then we are accused of our zelious moderating. It's a toughy for sure
Click to expand...
Please remember that my complaint is wider than Glory. It keeps coming back to him, but whilst I accept he's gone, I still stand by my questions re. how future bans should be handled. That is the wider issue that remains outstanding imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bucks_is_leeds
bucks_is_leeds said:
Quick question Do you want strict moderation like other sites?

I'll post your concerns on the Moderator forum and see if we can learn from other teams pages <ok>
Click to expand...
I think everyone's missing my point. Everyone reads my posts on this subject & immediately ties it in to the Glory banning. It's not. It's a generalisation.

I asked for communication, as it's never happened before. You did it on this thread. That's progress, but perhaps in future it could be done sooner, and with appropriate detail (person banned, length of ban, reason for ban - simples). In my working days, we'd use pro formas like this in certain situations, so we covered everything we had to communicate - precisely to inform & avoid constant questioning. So 10/10 for trying to recover that situation, and hope that there is more immediacy, transparency & accuracy if we ever have another banning. And now that I've been corrected, I know that the banned poster can go on as guest and read his own obituary, so to speak, so that's a good thing too.

The outstanding point I question is the fact that we only issue life bans. Why? Then again, due to the lack of transparency, and lack of communication (as mentioned above), there may well have been all sorts of bans issued, but we've never heard of them. If this is the case, you may well be on top of the disciplinary system - it's just that due to lack of comms, we've not been aware.

EDIT: Changed 1-/10 to the 10/10 it should have been. Sorry if it led to misinterpretation.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lifecheshirewhite
ristac said:
Then my suggestion to the supermods would be the same, ask for the mod team to make an announcement stating why the person was banned, lock the thread so that it doesn't become cluttered, provide a contact email address for the supermods that the banned person can contact them on and take it from there. Even if it means the supermods unlocking the announcement and posting the email reply.

Again it is just a suggestion and not something myself Bucks or Elland can implement, I personally would be against a strict set of rules, it would be a nightmare implementing one site wide.
Click to expand...
You're getting there, Richard. Doesn't have to be strict. If someone is peeing in the street all of the time & ignoring your warnings, is it right to issue the death sentence? (Awful analogy, I know <sorry>). But if you issued a short ban of a couple of days after the warning was ignored, it might sink in with some. Another repeat, a longer ban. And so on. Most might get the message before a 6 month ban, I'm sure. Then again .... :) I think the word I'm pushing here is proportion. The transparency message seems to have been acknowledged by this late OP, for which I'm grateful.

This is dragging on. It's a 5 min conversation in the pub. I think we're making progress. I can see our mods thinking. Sadly, our supermods think their attempts of humour & avoidance are more important than addressing an issue. But that's supermods for you. Hopefully we'll never need to use them again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lifecheshirewhite
Whitejock said:
I think everyone's missing my point. Everyone reads my posts on this subject & immediately ties it in to the Glory banning. It's not. It's a generalisation.

I asked for communication, as it's never happened before. You did it on this thread. That's progress, but perhaps in future it could be done sooner, and with appropriate detail (person banned, length of ban, reason for ban - simples). In my working days, we'd use pro formas like this in certain situations, so we covered everything we had to communicate - precisely to inform & avoid constant questioning. So 1-/10 for trying to recover that situation, and hope that there is more immediacy, transparency & accuracy if we ever have another banning. And now that I've been corrected, I know that the banned poster can go on as guest and read his own obituary, so to speak, so that's a good thing too.

The outstanding point I question is the fact that we only issue life bans. Why? Then again, due to the lack of transparency, and lack of communication (as mentioned above), there may well have been all sorts of bans issued, but we've never heard of them. If this is the case, you may well be on top of the disciplinary system - it's just that due to lack of comms, we've not been aware.
Click to expand...

I may be misunderstanding your point yet again .... but are you suggesting that you think we only do life bans ?

As for the other matter re a PM in 2016 .... I have looked at Jan 16 & the only one I can find between us was a thank you message from you .... so yes please forward the other conversation so I can have a read .... seriously I'm a super-mod so I cannot possibly remember all the conversations I have had on here .... or all the posters who have received bans
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitejock
Whitejock said:
You're getting there, Richard. Doesn't have to be strict. If someone is peeing in the street all of the time & ignoring your warnings, is it right to issue the death sentence? (Awful analogy, I know <sorry>). But if you issued a short ban of a couple of days after the warning was ignored, it might sink in with some. Another repeat, a longer ban. And so on. Most might get the message before a 6 month ban, I'm sure. Then again .... :) I think the word I'm pushing here is proportion. The transparency message seems to have been acknowledged by this late OP, for which I'm grateful.

This is dragging on. It's a 5 min conversation in the pub. I think we're making progress. I can see our mods thinking. Sadly, our supermods think their attempts of humour & avoidance are more important than addressing an issue. But that's supermods for you. Hopefully we'll never need to use them again.
Click to expand...

OK .... you are now pissing me off completely .... lets go to PM
 
  • Like
Reactions: FORZA LEEDS and Irishshako
Minxy said:
OK .... you are now pissing me off completely .... lets go to PM
Click to expand...
Why take things to PM ?

WJ raises some very important issues which quite a few of us are interested in and might like to contribute to.

Perhaps if things were just addressed in a more serious fashion from the beginning then we wouldn't have to make posts to finally get your attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whitejock
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back